Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so

On Dec. 17, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah pardoned the young woman, who was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison after she pressed charges against seven men who had raped her and a male acquaintance in 2006. Two weeks earlier, Sudan’s president extended a similar reprieve to Gillian Gibbons, the British teacher convicted of insulting Islam because her 7-year-old students named a teddy bear Muhammad. Gibbons had been sentenced to prison, but government-organized street demonstrators were loudly demanding her execution.

In January, Nazanin Fatehi was released from an Iranian jail after a death sentence against her was revoked. She had originally been convicted of murder for fatally stabbing a man when he and two others attempted to rape her and her niece in a park. (Had she yielded to the rapists, she could have been flogged or stoned for engaging in nonmarital sex.)

The sparing of these women was very welcome news, of course, and it was not coincidental that each case had triggered an international furor. But for every “girl from Qatif” or Nazanin who is saved, there are far too many other Muslim girls and women for whom deliverance never comes.

No international furor saved Aqsa Parvez, a Toronto teenager, whose father was charged on Dec. 11 with strangling her to death because she refused to wear a hijab (Muslim head covering). “She just wanted to look like everyone else,” one of Aqsa’s friends told the National Post, “and I guess her dad had a problem with that.”

No reprieve came for Banaz Mahmod, either. She was 20 and a Kurdish immigrant to Britain, whose father and uncle had her killed last year after she left an abusive arranged marriage and fell in love with a man not from the family’s village in Kurdistan. Banaz was choked to death with a bootlace, stuffed into a suitcase, and buried in a garden 70 miles away. More than 25 such “honor killings” have been confirmed in Britain’s Muslim community in recent years. Many more are suspected.

There has been no storm of outrage about the intimidation and murder in Basra, Iraq, of women who wear Western-style clothing. Iraqi police say that more than 40 women have been killed so far this year by Islamists; the bodies are often left in garbage dumps with notes accusing the victims of “un-Islamic behavior.”

By Western standards, the subjugation of women by Muslim fanatics and the sometimes pathological Islamist obsession with female sexuality are unthinkable. Time and again they lead to shocking acts of violence and depravity:

• In Pakistan, a tribal council ordered a woman to be gang-raped as punishment for her brother’s supposed liaison with a woman from another tribe.

• In San Francisco, a young Muslim woman was shot dead after she uncovered her hair and put on makeup in order to be a maid of honor at a friend’s wedding.

• In Tehran, a father beheaded his 7-year-old daughter because he suspected that she had been raped; he said he acted “to defend my honor, fame, and dignity.”

• In Saudi Arabia, Islamic police prevented schoolgirls from leaving a burning building because they were not wearing headscarves and abayas (overgarment for whole body); 15 of the girls died in the inferno.

• The president of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, a renowned center of Islamic learning, described the proper method of wife-beating in a television interview: “It’s not really beating,” Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb explained on Egyptian television. “It’s more like punching.”

When the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in 1996, the repression of women was among its first priorities. It issued a decree forbidding women to leave their homes, with the result that work and schooling for women came to a halt, destroying the country’s healthcare system, civil service, and elementary education.

“Forty percent of the doctors, half of the government workers, and seven out of 10 teachers were women,” Lawrence Wright observed in The Looming Tower, his Pulitzer Prize-winning history of Al Qaeda. “Under the Taliban, many of them would become beggars.”

Women are not the only victims of this rampant misogyny. Mohammed Halim, a 46-year-old Afghan schoolteacher, was dragged from his family and horribly murdered last year n disemboweled and then dismembered n for defying orders to stop educating girls.

All these are only examples n the tip of a dreadful iceberg that will never be demolished until Muslims by the millions rise up against it. As for the rest of us, we, too, have an obligation to raise our voices. It took a worldwide outcry to spare the “girl from Qatif” and Nazanin. But there are countless others like them, and our silence may seal their fate.

Pretty mind blowing. You couldn't script this sort of stuff if you tried. Craziness along these lines only happens in real life.

And here I was getting upset today when my Muslim neighbors from across the street were shoveling their snow. It's always the mother and the daughter. Mother is well into her fifties, while the daughter looks closer to 13. They're usually the ones doing the lawn mowing in the summer time, too. Meanwhile, there's the husband and a teenage son. I have yet to see either of them lift a finger. I can only imagine what life is like inside that house. And this is in the U.S., mind you.

Kiwi, you mention that this "will never be demolished until Muslims by the millions rise up against it". I hate to sound like a pessimist here... but how would something like this transpire? All I see is perpetuation, or the second coming, or my funeral... which ever comes first.

Kiwi, you mention that this "will never be demolished until Muslims by the millions rise up against it". I hate to sound like a pessimist here... but how would something like this transpire? All I see is perpetuation, or the second coming, or my funeral... which ever comes first.

It was in the article I don't write it, but funny as it seems theres a shift of mullah thinking to Moderate mullah, which to me means ever more sneaky rat mullahs.

But this change of direction could in the future change Islam as we currently know it.

After all take the Jews, their religion now falls into four types.

Maybe this is the future of Islam as well.

Change it because the world is against you, and western communities refuse to allow you to kill your women.

I've had this little theory for a while about the "Information Age" destroying uncivilized ways of thought. The internet (or mass global media) communicates a fairly balanced message of democracy, equality, and understanding. The longer it's around, the more it will impact "group mind".

Ironically, this is all due to capitalism. Mass global exposure costs money... the type of money that huge American corporations and brands can afford. You see, McDonald's and Coca-Cola want women to be equal to men. Their reasoning for this is a bit less noble. They want equality so that women can also make purchasing decisions, and not have to wait for a man's approval.

I know this sounds a little cynical, but I'm certain that it's not too far from the truth. The funny part is that money is often deemed to be an "evil". Yet in this case, it's the number one proponent of equality.

Looks like poison was the cure.

__________________
"The true nature of things, we will never know" - Albert Einstein

Islam considers women as less then a man. It is written in black and white in the Koran. Even thou more rights were given to Muslim women then existed before among the barbaric Arab tribes it still didn't give them equality.

However I find very few female friendly religions since the beginning of religion itself.

__________________Shalom to everyone! No extremeis good. Neitherin religion, nor in science.
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
~ Golda Meir~

However I find very few female friendly religions since the beginning of religion itself.

Seems to be a "man-made" product.

Coincidently, let us not forget that a woman's equality in the U.S. was questionable, at best, up to the early 70's (women's lib movement). So with that in mind, this whole concept (West included) is still in its infancy stages. I guess we'll just have to see how this thing plays out in the East.

P.S. - In defense of the U.S., I must say that there is a big difference between not having voting rights and being stoned to death.

__________________
"The true nature of things, we will never know" - Albert Einstein

Coincidently, let us not forget that a woman's equality in the U.S. was questionable, at best, up to the early 70's (women's lib movement). So with that in mind, this whole concept (West included) is still in its infancy stages. I guess we'll just have to see how this thing plays out in the East.

P.S. - In defense of the U.S., I must say that there is a big difference between not having voting rights and being stoned to death.

The world hasn't evolved fast enough yet to behave as they should.
Even the west has a long way to go.

However we can safely say the west has more or less reached the age of WORDS, therefore we throw words at eachother and our enemies.

the Arabs and muslims (generally speaking) still live in the STONE age, therefore they throw stones at their enemies.(women included)

__________________Shalom to everyone! No extremeis good. Neitherin religion, nor in science.
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
~ Golda Meir~

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Homa Arjomand, the Coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada. She was recognized as Woman of the Year by Gazette Des Femmes in 2005. In 2006, she received the annual Toronto Humanist of the Year award and the HAC (Humanist Association of Canada) Humanist of The Year Award.

FP: You are originally from Iran . Can you tell us a bit about your background and how you ended up leaving Iran ?

Arjomand: I was born and raised in Iran . At the age of 17, I started my social/political activities with a group of medical students and became a dissident against the Islamic regime. I studied in England with the sponsorship of the National Iranian Oil Company. I returned back to Iran and worked as a teacher in various colleges and universities.

In the winter of 1989, I fled Iran through the mountains because my life was endangered by the Islamic Regime. I have lived in Canada since 1990 and have attended and organized countless meetings, international conferences, panel discussions and forums on issues related to women’s, children’s and gay and lesbian rights. I did many interviews with leading newspapers and TV programs in Europe and North America defending secularism.

When the Ontario Arbitration Act allowed family disputes to be resolved by faith-based arbitrations, as an advocator of secularism I formed the International Campaign against Sharia Court in Canada to oppose Sharia Court and the restrictions that political Islam was imposing on women and children and all other faith-based arbitration.

In Toronto, I ran a social talk show on Rogers Cable which dealt with such issues as children’s rights, women’s rights, gay and lesbian rights and elder abuse. Right now I am working as transitional counselor for women experiencing domestic violence.

FP:Tell us about the International Campaign against Sharia Court in Canada .

Arjomand: While living in Iran I saw the rise of political Islam and with it the application of Sharia law.

The rise of Political Islam pushed back the women’s liberation movement in Iran and lowered the standards of that society by legalizing gender apartheid and by enforcing religious family laws that openly discriminate against women and children.

As the power of political Islam grew in Iran , I witnessed the execution of all my fellow activists for their belief and work in human and women’s rights issues in Iran .

I know for a fact that discrimination and gender-based persecution in areas of marriage, divorce, child custody and so on are reasons why many women flee the societies which are ruled by Political Islam and seek refuge in Canada and the West.

For the past 12 years I have worked as a transitional counselor for abused women in Canada . Many of my clients come from so-called “Muslim communities.” I help these women and children to escape abusive and often dangerous family situations and to start a new life in a safe and secure home.

In my work I often see the unfair treatment of women and children when they use faith-based arbitration. Most of these women receive very little in the way of financial support and often have no right to see their children. Sometimes after a divorce, the father will send his children -- particularly the girls -- back to his home country to be raised by a family member and then push them to marry at a very young age even though they are Canadian Citizens.

On October 23rd, 2003 , Mr. Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of the Canadian Society of Muslims, announced the opening of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice. In his announcement, Mr. Ali said that to be a ‘good Muslim’, you must use Sharia law for family legal matters. This political statement was not only coercive but also a direct threat to devout Muslims who prefer to use Canadian laws.

Mr. Ali’s statement shocked me because his proposal had nothing to do with someone’s personal belief; it was in fact very political. He claimed his legal authority was based on Ontario law. Through my work as a transitional counselor, I was well aware that faith-based arbitrations were occurring. However, I had wrongly assumed it was being practiced illegally, behind closed doors.

At the time I did not believe that Canada would permit arbitration of family legal matters based on religious laws. However, when I investigated further, I discovered that in the Arbitration Act of 1991, Article 32, Conflict of Laws, did indeed permit family arbitrations to be based on religious laws. This discovery saddened and worried me and other activists. To us, as experienced defenders of women and children’s rights, the Arbitration Act of 1991 provided a green light for political Islam to widen its reach and tighten its grip on the lives of Muslims living in Canada . We felt it was our duty to inform the Canadian public of this threat to their freedoms.

All of us were motivated by a common concern that political Islam was trying to expand in Canada by promoting the use of family arbitrations based on Sharia law. We were sure that the rise of Sharia court in Canada was not just a coincident. It was part of a global move of political Islam.

Our campaign started in Toronto on October 30th, 2003 with a handful of supporters, and today it has grown to a coalition of 183 organizations from 14 countries with over a thousand activists, who volunteer their time and skills.

Arjomand: Aqsa Parvez is obviously another victim of honor killing. She has been tried and sentenced to death by her family’s belief, for not honoring the backward culture and traditions which are promoted and guarded by religious movements -- in particular Islamic movement globally.

Honor killing is a punishment for the women who act not according to the religion, tradition and culture imposed on them. To be more precise it is a punishment for the ones who desire to run their own lifestyle and choose their own partner. The victims are women and young girls who have thirst to be free and are not willing to compromise for less than a modern and humane life style.

The death of Aqsa Parvez at the age of 16 is just a tip of the iceberg in Canada , where respect of backward cultures and religions comes before women’s and children’s rights, where cultural ghettoes have become an ideal heaven to crush any desire in women to be free.

In the case of Aqsa Parvez, a brave girl who put herself at the forefront of the struggle for a well deserved human life, the Islamic groups that promote Islamic law and Islamic schools and are looking for more shares in power should be held responsible the most. They are the ones who push for enclosed and regressive communities in the heart of Canada and have created little Irans , Afghanistans , Somalias and Pakistans . They are the ones to blame for convincing families and individuals to accept the barbaric rules and regulations, and for not having any mercy for their own children and family members.

This cruelty to our children and women should not be tolerated and must be condemned strongly. Harsh punishment must be considered for those who abuse or victimize children and women under so-called Islamic action.

FP: What is the nature of the Islamic regime in Iran ?

Arjomand: The Islamic regime of Iran by nature is Islamic based on Islamic ideology. It is well known as anti-freedom, anti–women and anti-secularism. Its brutal laws represent anti-modernism and anti all progressive social values. This regime is founded on the principles of terror, imprisonment, torture, execution, and stoning.

FP: Share with us some more of your thoughtson political Islam.

Arjomand: Political Islam as a movement is very active in politics and is after its own state and its share of power. Other aspects such as culture and laws serve its political desire and its political needs.This movement rides on the mass of people who are oppressed and isolated.They are the oneswho are out of patience with discrimination and oppression and have no hope for social improvement by parties in power and have no hope for modern and progressive alternatives. This movement appears as anti-Western, not necessarily anti-‘western government’, but rather anti ‘western values and standards'.It is misogynistic and goes against modernism. It is extremely anti-secular.

This is a movement that will not hesitate to do anything in order to push back its oppositions and gain recognition by the states in the West. This is sometimes done through terrorizing people by implanting bombs in the busiest streets, cinemas, subway stations, hospitals and schools. This creates a parallel power structure within the surrounding societies. This movement will do anything to penetrate the Legal system, whether it uses a bad piece of legislation such as the Ontario Arbitration Act 1991 or by taking the law into its own hands by imposing a completely different structure of human relations within society. This is done by removing civic culture where citizens are free and equal and replacing it with ethics laid down in Sharia.

This movement has no actual economic or social plan, but it is aware that any form of democracy in countries such as Iran , Iraq , Pakistan and Egypt would end up in a mass secular uprising and the growth of labor movements. Even in Saudi Arabia no Sheik can survive more than a few days if true democracy were allowed to exist.

FP: Are you optimistic that Iranians can overthrow the regime?

Arjomand: Iran , as a society, has been dedicated to civilization and has the thirst for modernism and Western culture. The struggle of women against the compulsory veil, attraction of young girls to achieve university degrees and higher education, attraction of youth towards Western culture, music, film and fashion, the struggle of women to obtain the right to divorce and the right to have custody of their children, right to travel and work, all present the strength of a very strong secular movement in Iran.

There is an approach that opposes a cultural and intellectual secular democracy in Iran . The followers of this approach first assume 90% of people in Iran are Moslem just because by birth they are. They further assume that the members of society in Iran have no desire for political freedom and civil rights and then based on this assumption; they conclude that citizens of the society in Iran are followers of a backward tradition and religion. Their proposal is to put more effort on education, mostly cultural education, and criticize religion in a philosophical way. The followers of this approach purposely ignore the grass root movement for secularism and try to prevent religion from falling. They have indeed tried hard to save the Islamic Regime of Iran by planting the notion that Islam can become moderate.

But the reality and the need of society, as well as the move of people in Iran , have proven something different. In order to survive, the people of Iran need to achieve a modern civil life. It is impossible to ask highly educated women to deny their basic rights and to become submissive towards the men in their households. It is impossible to treat women as second-class citizens while they are holding jobs in industrial firms or service offices. It is impossible to expect youths not to enjoy the happy colorful life and live like the student of theology, in an era of the internet and high technology.

The reality is that the movement of secular democracy has been pushed back by the religious role (political Islam) and people of Iran are well aware of it. This is why we are promoting a mass movement with the banner of ‘freedom and secularism’ to overthrow this regime.

FP: Homa Arjomand, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Arjomand: Thank you.

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Over the next few days, as more details emerge about the murders of Amina and Sarah Said, we will see Islamic spokesmen on TV (Ibrahim Hooper is probably sitting for make-up as you read this) explaining that honor killing is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam, and of course above all the one thing we must avoid doing in the aftermath of these murders is entertain for even a moment the possibility that Islamic attitudes and atmospherics had anything to do with the deaths of these girls. And Alan Colmes will nod sagely and agree that Islamophobia is a terrible problem, and Sean Hannity will burble about the "hijacking of a great religion," and Glenn Beck will assure us that the Qur'an teaches nonviolence, and a splendid time is guaranteed for all. No one will dream of holding the American Muslim community accountable for aiding and abetting the creation of a culture of violence against women. Oh no. That would be "Islamophobic."

And so this Yemen Times piece comes particularly ill-timed for Hooper and other Islamic spokesmen in the West, who spill large amounts of ink assuring us that oh no, no Muslim takes Qur'an 4:34, the Muslim holy book's notorious verse commanding the beating of disobedient women, at face value. Oh no. No Muslim actually beats his wife, or if he does, he does it only with a toothbrush, and anyway, well, wife-beating is cross-cultural, isn't it? It isn't as if no American wife has ever been beaten.
And certainly that's true: wife-beating is cross-cultural, but that doesn't prove a thing, and bringing it up only ensures that the Islamic community in America will, in the wake of the murders of Amina and Sarah Said, once again be absolved of all responsibility, and exempted from all accountability -- because after all, everyone does it, don't they?

Anyway, in the Yemen Times today, Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy doesn't say anything about toothbrushes, or everyone doing it, or anything at all except that women should be beaten when disobedient, because the Qur'an says so.

This is the culture that killed Amina and Sarah Said. This is the culture that killed Aqsa Parvez. This is the culture whose leaders persist in denial, obfuscation, and finger-pointing instead of honest dealing with the problem.

"There must be violence against women," by Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy in the Yemen Times (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):

This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.

First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.

Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples.

Even that between a father and daughter? Horrors!

Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions. One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.

See? They should look at the reasons! What if this fellow had perfectly good reasons to beat the tar out of his wife? Then where would be if he gets locked up? Next thing you know, Britney Spears will be Emir al-Momineen!

If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also. For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.

This is a false statement.Qur'an 4:34 tells men to beat their disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in separate beds. It is worth noting how several translators render the key part of this verse, وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ, waidriboohunna.

Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.

Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.

Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.

Of course! They always have very, very good reasons!

Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?

Yes. They have no solution. They don't see the wisdom of popping her one.

According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?

Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.

Oh yeah. I'm amazed, Maged.

In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?

As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration.

Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us.

I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.

Oh, it's clear. It's clear.

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

London, Jan. 15 – A prominent international human rights organisations on Tuesday urged Iran to abolish the “grotesque and unacceptable” practice of stoning.

Amnesty International said that currently nine women and two men in Iran are awaiting to be stoned to death, adding that the “horrific practice” was “specifically designed to increase the suffering of the victims”.

In a new report published today, the organisation called on the authorities urgently to repeal or amend the country's Penal Code to put an end to stoning.

“Iran's Penal Code prescribes execution by stoning. It even dictates that the stones are large enough to cause pain, but not so large as to kill the victim immediately. Article 102 of the Penal Code states that men should be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for the purpose of execution by stoning. Article 104 states, with reference to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should ‘not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes; nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones’”, Amnesty said.

“The serious failings in the justice system commonly result in unfair trials, including in capital cases”, it added.

Despite official denials, Amnesty said that since 2002 stoning sentences continued to be implemented in Iran.

It cited the case of Ja'far Kiani who was stoned to death on 5 July 2007 in the village of Aghche-kand, near Takestan in Qazvin province. He had been convicted of committing adultery with Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, with whom he had two children and who was also sentenced to death by stoning.

Amnesty added, “A woman and a man are known to have been stoned to death in Mashhad [north-eastern Iran] in May 2006”.

“The majority of those sentenced to death by stoning are women. Women suffer disproportionately from such punishment. One reason is that they are not treated equally before the law and courts, in clear violation of international fair trial standards. They are particularly vulnerable to unfair trials because they are more likely than men to be illiterate and therefore more likely to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit. Discrimination against women in other aspects of their lives also leaves them more susceptible to conviction for adultery,” Amnesty said.

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

"This Saudi Patriarchal Culture Has Become Prevalent under Religious Guise"

Wajiha Al-Huweidar: "We have raised a generation - I think it began with my own generation - on the belief that we are a special people, that we are the cradle of Islam, that the truth is ours and ours alone, that we are the Saved Sect of Islam. People have begun to believe all these lies, and they use them as pretexts. When we demanded that women be employed in public workplaces, they say: 'No, we are a special people.' When we demand that women be allowed to drive, they say: 'No, we are a special people.' No, we are not. In what way are we special? There is nothing special about us. True, we have the two holy cities - Mecca and Al-Madina - but this does not mean that we have a monopoly on religion, and that we are the only Muslims in the world.
[...]
"This Saudi patriarchal culture has become prevalent under religious guise, but if you examine everything that goes on in this society, none of it has anything to do with religion. How can it be that people are stripped of their individual judgment, and the Commission [for the Prevention of Vice] is sent to spy on people in the streets, and to determine who errs and who acts properly? Who gave them the right to do this? People have the right to decide for themselves what they do and don't want."

"The Early Signs that a Wrong Ideology is Dying are Fanaticism and Extremism"

Interviewer: "Should women be allowed to decide this for themselves?"

Wajiha Al-Huweidar: "Of course. After all, they are like any..." Interviewer: "Despite this commission?"

Wajiha Al-Huweidar: "This commission must be abolished, and the day will come when it will be. Look, the early signs that a wrong ideology is dying are fanaticism and extremism. This is obvious. Have you ever seen a dead body that is soft? When the person dies, the body becomes rigid. Similarly, this ideology will become increasingly rigid, and will reach the height of fanaticism, but it is constantly in the process of dying. Take a look at history. Let's examine what happened to the Church in Europe. It becomes rigid and persecuted ideologies, killing and burning scientists, until people rebelled against it, and this led to its collapse. History tells us that this holds true for all ideologies. Communism..."

Interviewer: "Are you seeing signs of this collapse?"

Wajiha Al-Huweidar: "This will not happen in our generation. It will take time, but it will happen. [...]

Saudi Men "Draw Their Strength from the Weakness of Women"
"We, in the East - and I am talking about the East in a broad sense, including Pakistan, Turkey, and the Kurds... The way I see it, these are all wretched people, wretched men. This is obvious. He who has nothing cannot give anything to others. These men have lost what could have given them a real sense of masculinity. They draw their masculinity from Islam, if they are Muslims, of if they are non-Muslims, from the customs and tradition of the very harsh society that gives men more rights than women. Hence, they do not draw any strength from within. In the case of our Saudi society, they draw their strength from the weakness of women too. Most women choose to be weak, because it makes their lives easier. The weaker the wife is, the stronger the husband feels. How can you rely on a man who does not draw his strength from within?
[...]
"Do not forget that Eastern men are oppressed both by society and by the authorities. Men face the authorities more than women, and the authorities in Eastern countries are very harsh, to the point that a person can vanish, without anybody ever knowing what happened to him.
[...]
"Saudi men strut around like peacocks, as they say, because they were given more than they deserve, and they have authorities beyond what they are capable of bearing. The Saudi man believes he should be president. The moment he graduates from university, he wants to become president. I know that men will say that I am generalizing, but I am talking about the phenomenon, about the vast majority. How come you can hardly find any Saudi laborers? My father was a laborer, and so were many of his generation.
[...]
"I do not understand why there is no room for other religions in the vast land of Saudi Arabia. To this day, there is no church for the Christians, no synagogue for the Jews, and [no] temple for the Hindus, even though they constitute a large part of the foreign communities in Saudi Arabia. There are six to eight million of these people."

Interviewer: "There is the notion that Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam, as you've said, and that it is the most conservative Islamic country. That is the response you usually get to such questions."

"Why Do We Fear Other Religions?"Wajiha Al-Huweidar: "Why do we fear other religions? What frightens us? We should have confidence in ourselves and in our religion. There is no religious text that prohibits the establishment of a church or a temple of any religion. If they want to oppose this in Mecca or Al-Madina - there could be a justification for this, but in the other cities, where there are many foreign workers... How can this be justified? It could be justified because these cities are holy to Muslims, even though Mecca... In my opinion, Mecca should be opened to all the Muslim and non-Muslim peoples of the world. How come the sheikh of the Haram Mosque, to this day, comes from the same family and from the same region - Najd?"

Interviewer: "What family?"

Wajiha Al-Huweidar: "It is passed down from father to son in the Subayyil family. Why only this family, and why must it be a family from Najd? How come Saudis have a monopoly on Islam? Are the Saudis the only Muslims? If we want to spread the notion of tolerance towards other religions and sects, the Haram Mosque should be given to the different sects."

Interviewer: "Which sects?"

Wajiha Al-Huweidar: "All of them. Why must the sheikh of the Haram Mosque be of the Hanbali school? Why can't there be a Hanbali sheikh one day, and on other days, sheikhs from the Shafe'i, Maliki, Hanafi, Ja'fari, and Isma'ili schools? Why can't there be sheikhs of other nationalities? Why only Saudis? [...] "Saudi society is based on enslavement - the enslavement of women to men and of society to the state. People still do not make their own decisions, but it is the women of Saudi Arabia who have been denied everything. The Saudi woman still lives the life of a slave girl. So in what way are we different from Guantanamo? At least in the case of Guantanamo, many prisoners have been released, while we remain in this prison, and nobody ever hears of us. When will we be freed? I don't know."

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Its amazes me how they can sleep at night, these women are nuts, I know i couldn't stand my abusive husband, and I plotted many a time to kill him.

Grinding up glass in his meals, slowly posioning him with rat sack tablets, lacing his food with sleeping tablets, even when they sleep how easy it is to knife him, my point these women aren't powerless.

Here are some delightful tidbits about the ideas Islam has about women

Here are some delightful tidbits about the ideas Islam has about women... and how to treat them.

"How a Man Should Discipline his Wife"

The permission to beat a woman in the case of rebelliousness is based on the Qur´an and the Hadith. "Admonish those women whose rebelliousness you fear, and leave them alone in their beds, and [even] beat them [if necessary]. If they obey you, do not seek any way [to proceed] against them" (Sura al-Nisa´ 4:32). Modern jurists and writers have done their best to weaken this verse by interpreting "rebelliousness" as disobedience and adultery, where beating would be the last means a man can resort to in order to keep the woman from committing that heinous deed. The old jurists and commentators, however, were more realistic and frank. Al-Shafi`i, for example, holds that a man has the right to beat his wife, but abstaining from it (namely from beating) is better. The other verse that is used to prove the permissibility of beating is Sura Sad 38:44, " 'Take in thy hand a bundle of rushes, and strike [your wife] therewith, and do not fail in thy oath.' We found him a steadfast man. How excellent a servant he was! He was a penitent." The person spoken of here is the prophet Job.

Qatada narrated: "Job's wife disobeyed him. So the prophet of God (Job) swore that he would give her a hundred lashes if God healed him." Al-Jassas says, "There is an indication in this verse that a man can beat his wife for the sake of discipline, otherwise Job wouldn't have sworn to beat her, and God wouldn't have commanded him to do so after he had sworn. In addition to mentioning and permitting the beating of women in the Qur´an on the grounds of rebelliousness (in the verse that says, "Admonish those women whose rebelliousness you fear... beat them"), the story of Job indicates that she could be beaten for a reason other than rebelliousness. The verse that says, "Men are the managers of the affairs of women," (Sura al-Nisa´ 4:34) means the same as the story of Job. This is because it was narrated that a man beat his wife during the lifetime of Muhammad, and her family wanted a requital. So God revealed, "Men are the ones that should be in charge of women because some have been favoured more than others." The judge Ibn al-`Arabi says, "The command to beat here is a permissive one." He also refers to the aversion it involves: Muhammad said, "I hate that a man beats his female slave when in anger, and perhaps has intercourse with her on the same day."

Beating should not be intense (mubarrih), as the jurists proved from the hadith pertaining to the permissibility of beating women. Sulayman Ibn `Amr Ibn al-`Ahwas narrated: "Ubai told me that he witnessed the address of departure of the prophet. He thanked God and praised him, and started preaching, saying, "I command you good-will for your wives, for they are captives to you that do not own anything, unless they commit a manifest obscenity [or adultery]. If they do [commit it], then God has given you permission to leave them alone in their beds and give them a bearable beating." Al-Sabuni says that this saying of Muhammad indicates that it is permitted to beat a woman for reasons of chastity (or decency). As to the point that beating should not be intense or painful, it means "that you should not break her bones or leave a bruise." In spite of the fact that there are many hadiths that relate how hateful it is to beat women, it seems that the jurists and the expositors in all ages (even in our days) chose the traditions that permit and prefer disciplinary punishment of women; such as "A man should not be asked why he beats his wife," which is now quoted frequently by the majority.

There is still a difference of opinion, however, among scholars about the definition of "rebelliousness," which gives a man the right to resort to beating as a last means. "Most jurists define legal rebelliousness [nushuz], which allows a man to beat his wife in order to remove that rebelliousness, in certain ways, such as disobeying a man in bed, and going out of the house without his permission. Some consider a woman's abstaining from ornaments, provided that the man wants it, as rebelliousness. They say, 'He may also beat her for neglecting her religious duties; such as ablution, praying...' It appears that rebelliousness is a general thing that includes all sorts of disobedience caused by recalcitrance and disdain." It is strange that jurists consider beating women as a legal means of forcing them to have intercourse. It is stranger still that Muslim writers in the twentieth century try to justify this weird apology by the alleged discoveries of psychology in Europe. Antagonism to women and blind bigotry caused one of them (who claimed to be quoting a European scholar) to assert that "woman takes pleasure in being controlled by the man due to her instinctive obedience to him. The more he beats her, the more she admires him! Nothing saddens a woman more than having a husband who is always kind and loving." Muhammad Zaki `Abd al-Qadir says that "women like difficult men, who can break their [the women's] will by their own will. Even though they scream... in their heart of hearts they feel the pleasure of their weakness against the strength of their men." A few years ago, a progressive professor wrote that "beating should be [used] when a woman indulges in rebelliousness, spreading misery in her home, to her children and relatives, and to her husband. No one should think that beating has a brutal aspect, as there are women who beat their husbands, and others do not allow their husbands to approach them [physically] except after they have given them a thrashing, to cause them to bleed. This has been pointed out by psychological studies on perversion."

Imam Muhammad `Abduh attacks the so-called "imitators of the west who disdain the legality of beating women but do not feel the same way about the woman who snubs her husband and treats him haughtily, putting him under her thumb, even though he is the head of the house." He asks, "What corruption is it that will spread on earth when a righteous man is permitted to reduce the arrogance of a certain woman and bring her down from her conceited rebelliousness by beating her hand with a stick or slapping her on the face? If this is too much for their ethics, then their ethics have become refined to the point of non-existence. In fact, many of their western leaders beat their cultured, educated wives, whether dressed or naked. This has been practised by their wise men, scholars, kings, and princes, since it is a necessity that the majority of people cannot do without in honouring these educated women. How then could a necessity in a general religion, which suits both rural and urban societies and all sorts of people, be condemned?"

The great reformer Muhammad `Abduh adds: "The legality of beating women is not reprehensible, as far as reason and instinctive nature are concerned, so that it would need explanation. This is a needful procedure when the environment and morals are corrupt. It is permitted when the woman's return from her rebelliousness depends on it. But if the environment is good and women are receptive to advice and responsive to admonition, or give up [their evil ways] when deserted, then beating should be done away with. Each case has a judgment that suits it in the [Islamic] legislation, and, at any rate, we are instructed to be lenient and fair with women, and to retain them with decency or send them away with decency. The hadiths that speak of the instructions dealing with women are numerous."

Scholars are painstaking in emphasising that not all women should be beaten. There are women (the majority) who do not need to be disciplined by beating. Yet, some say there is a divine wisdom in beating women, otherwise the Qur´an wouldn't have given it as a solution to family problems. This last point makes it impossible for a Muslim to reject beating utterly, so the Muslim is at a loss, not knowing how to defend or justify it. He may justify it by the usage of beating as disciplinary punishment in the military and in schools, or compare beating with wars that keep order in the world!

There are others, still, who try to break with marital rights and try to lift themselves above the head of the house and reject the dictates of their own nature. These lay marital life open to deterioration and decay; therefore the Qur´an laid out for such women two familiar ways of correction and discipline to curb them and bring them back to their natural position. Civilised Muslims have misunderstood this sort of remedy and described it as a dry desert-like remedy that doesn't suit civilisation, which demands that honour and respect be paid to the wife.

Islam was not intended for a certain generation, region, or environment. It is a guidance and a legislation to all generations, regions, and environments. In fact, physical punishment for deviates and perverts, who do not learn by exhortation or abandonment, is required by natural instinct and is determined by the social system.

Nature has handed this [practice] down from father to son, as it has handed it down among the nations to the rulers. But for it, no family or nation would live right. Physical wars, which are based on weapons of iron and fire between civilised nations at the present time, are only an example of this disciplinary punishment that awaits aggressors. The divine laws perceive the phenomenon of war and fighting as follows: "If one of them should oppress the other, then fight the one who acts oppressively until they comply with God's commandment," and "If God did not defend [lit. push] some men by means of others, the earth would be ruined; but God possesses bounty [for everybody in] the universe."

Again, the truth is that those who are reluctant about the legislation of the Qur´an in this respect only flatter the emotions of a specific environment of women that we and everybody know. Such people pretend in their presence that they are keen on protecting women's honour and dignity, and on putting her on a level that displays her in an extraordinary way.

The writer and philosopher Abbas Mahmud al-Aqqad does not lag behind the great reformer Imam Muhammad `Abduh in his arguments; he is even more forthright and gives more illustrations. He thinks it is right for a man to beat his wife when he is angry, to correct whatever mistake she makes. "Beating is not always a positive thing [to do] in every case and with every woman. Yet, beating is permitted since some women accept discipline only through it. The objections to beating made on the part of modern-day pedantics should be treated as a skirmish in political manoeuvres, not as a real discussion of the affairs of life and morals. There is only one consideration that validates the objection to beating as a punishment. Since God did not create women to be disciplined by beating, when nothing else seems to work. Anyone holding this view is oblivious to the fact that beating is approved as a disciplinary measure in the army and at school. So [this action is taken against] soldiers and pupils, whom we honour and respect, assuming the objection hinges on honour and respect. The superiors of these [soldiers and pupils] have more means of physical and moral punishment, deprivation and reward, that husbands do not have in the limited domain of the home."

Al-Aqqad's thoughts concerning beating women can be summarised by this statement: There are some women among them that cannot be disciplined except by beating; and there are even some neurotics who crave beating just as some patients crave some sorts of torture. The following is a quotation from the same author:
Women themselves may make fun of these babblers [he means women's rights activists] who are only at home at parties and in nightclubs. Women know for sure that beating a disobedient and rebellious wife is not as appalling as it is claimed to be in the nightclubs and parties. There might be some elegant ladies who frequent those places of amusement who know more about this than the "ladies' men" with their false "courtesy". They know, as others also do, that those women do not hate it [beating] or think it evil.

Mr Ahmad Shalabi has the same difficulty in understanding the opponents of beating women "especially since beating is applied as a means of correction and disciplinary punishment only when it will bring about good results. It is ridiculous to imagine that there is no member of mankind who is not capable of being corrected by being beaten. Or why don't those people object to the punishment of beating in the army?" We don't know what they might say if they knew that the punishment of beating has now been cancelled in the army and schools in some countries, and that modern psychology has proved that beating does not rehabilitate the mentality of a person, but ruins it, whether the victim is a child or a woman!http://islameyat.com/english/issues/discipline/discipline.htm

Mohammed about WomenMohammed's teachings are included in what is called "Hadith." The "Hadith" is a record of Mohammed's words and deeds according to his wives, relatives, and companions. Next to the Quran, it is the most important part of Islamic law; its teachings are just as binding.

The Hadith is recorded in many books, and by many people, not all of them are agreed upon by all Muslims. All of our quotes here are from "Sahih Al-Bukhari" which comes in nine volumes, and contains thousands of Hadiths. Al Bukhari is accepted by most Muslims as the authentic words of Mohammed. Because of the limited space, we will mention here just a few examples.

Our purpose is to give the reader a taste of the teachings of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam. Some of these teachings may shock you, and some may amuse you.

Women are deficient in mind and religion.

Mohammed asked some women, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half that of a man?" The women said, "yes," He said, "This is because of the deficiency of the woman's mind. " Vol. 3:826

Mohammed to women: "I have not seen any one more deficient in intelligence and religion than you." Vol. 2:541

The majority of people in hell are women.

Mohammed said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women. " Vol. 1:28, 301; Vol. 2:161; Vol. 7:124

Women are a bad omen.

Mohammed said, " Bad omen is in the woman, the house and the horse." Vol. 7:30

Women are harmful to men.

Mohammed said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women." Vol. 7:33

Anas said, "The prophet used to visit all his wives in an hour round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the prophet was given the strength of thirty (men). " Vol. 1:268

Mohammed married a 9 year old girl.

"Narrated Aisha that the prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old." Vol. 7:64

Allah hurries to please Mohammed's sexual desires.

When the Quranic verse that allows Mohammed to postpone the turn of any wife was revealed, and when Mohammed said that Allah allowed him to marry his adopted son's wife, Aisha (one of his wives) told him, "O Allah's Apostle I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you. " Vol. 7:48

When a woman is divorced irrevocably, she can not return to her husband until she marries (including having sexual intercourse) with another man.

"Narrated Aisha: The wife of Rifaa Al-Qurazi came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'O Allah's Apostle, Rifaa divorced me irrevocably. After him I married Abdur-Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi who proved to be impotent.' Allah's Apostle said to her, 'Perhaps you want to return to Rifaa? Nay (You cannot return to Rifaa) until you and Abdur-Rahman (the impotent man) engage in sexual intercourse! '" Vol. 7:186

HUMAN RIGHTS

Islam is to be imposed by force.

Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever says, " None has the right to be worshipped but Allah , his life and property will be saved by me." (otherwise it will not). Vol. 4:196

Mohammed said, " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Vol. 9:50

Ethnic cleansing is practiced.

Mohammed said to the Jews, "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (Mohammed) and I want to expel you from this land (The Arabian Peninsula), so, if anyone owns property, he is permitted to sell it." Vol. 4:392

Mohammed's last words at his deathbed were: "Turn the pagans (non-Muslims) out of the Arabian Peninsula." Vol. 5:716

ETERNAL SECURITY

No assurance of Salvation.

Mohammed said. "By Allah, though I am the apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me." Vol. 5:266

God punishes a deceased if his relatives weep.

Mohammed said, "The deceased is punished because of the weeping of his relatives." Vol. 2:375

When you speak badly about a deceased, the deceased will go to hell.

Mohammed said, "You praised this, so Paradise has been affirmed to him, and you spoke badly of this, so hell has been affirmed to him. You people are Allah's witnesses on earth." Vol. 2:448

Urine on your clothes will bring punishment from God.

Mohammed said, "The deceased person is being tortured in the grave not for a great thing to avoid, it is for being soiled with his urine. " Vol. 2:460

Holy war (Jihad) is a guarantee of heaven.

Mohammed said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to paradise (if he is killed). " Vol. 1:35

MEDICINE

Drinking camel's urine will make you healthy.

"The prophet ordered them to follow his camels, and drink their milk and urine , so they followed the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy." Vol. 7:590

Fever is from the heat of hell.

Mohammed said, " Fever is from the heat of hell, so put it out (cool it) with water." Vol. 7:619

A fly in your drink is a cure.

Mohammed said, "If a housefly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease. " Vol. 4:537

How the baby's looks are determined.

Mohammed said, "As for the child, if the man's discharge precedes the woman's discharge, the child attracts the similarity of the man, and if the woman's discharge precedes the man's, then the child attracts the similarity of the woman." Vol. 5:275

MISCELLANEOUS

If you eat garlic don't come to the place of worship.

Mohammed said, "Whosoever ate from this plant (i.e. garlic) should not enter the mosque." Vol. 1:812

Effect of evil eye

Mohammed said, "The effect of an evil eye is a fact. " Vol. 7:636

Which shoe you should put on first.

Mohammed said, "If you want to put on your shoes, put on the right shoe first, and if you want them off, take the left one first." Vol. 7:747

Breathing in your drink is bad.

Mohammed said, "Don't breath into your drinking utensil." Vol. 1:156

God frightens his devotees with eclipse.

Mohammed said, "The sun and the moon are two signs amongst the signs of Allah and they do not eclipse because of the death of someone but Allah frightens His devotees with them." Vol. 2:158

I've read this Hadeeth when I started researching Islam a year ago, and I found it to be the strongest evidence that men and women are not equal. Let me explain:-

Let's say we have two classes in a certain school, they both have the same number of students, and that number is a huge number. Say we gave them both a test. The majority of Class A passed the test while the majority of Class B failed. If both classes have the same mental capabilities, same degree of education, same test, same incentives then they should get very close results. Else, it means that something was not right. That either Class B are not as well educated as A, or that B's exam was harder, etc.... Thus the examiner isn't a fair examiner.

The above applies to the Hadeeth. If both men and women are equal then the number of men relative to women in hell should be almost equal too. If not, then it means that either women are more subject and tempted by sin (a harder exam), or that they don't have the same opportunities men do (less level of education). Which in the end indicated that God either wasn't fair in testing them, or he wasn't fair in creating them.

Add to this observation that there are naturally more boys are born than girls (about 5% more), i.e. more men than women have lived on this earth (even though they die younger), then this issue becomes even stronger.

Even though it seems quite clear what Muhammad meant, a possible objection could be raised from the English translation. What is the meaning of the word "majority" in the Arabic? Is it possible to interpret it as 50.1% to 49.9% or does the Arabic indicate a vast difference in numbers?

The word in Arabic is "akthar", and is usually used when there's a great difference in size, number, etc... That Hadeeth is understood by all Sheikhs and taken for granted that it means the "vast majority". I even once heard someone saying that it means two-thirds of the people of hell are women. From the context, it is impossible to interpret it as 50.1% to 49.9%.

Another reason for that is that Mohammed "saw" with his eyes the vast difference, he didn't do a survey, and God didn't tell him the number. So if the difference is seen then it cannot possibly be just a 1% or 2% difference.

I did a further search and this Hadeeth appears lots of time. I found another Hadeeth in Bukhari which says something along the line of "the general public of hell's dwellers are women". The Arabic phrase used makes it very clear that Mohammed is talking about a VAST majority here.

The Prophet said, "I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who entered it were the poor, while the wealthy were stopped at the gate (for the accounts). But the companions of the Fire were ordered to be taken to the Fire. Then I stood at the gate of the Fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women."

The Arabic word used for "the majority" here is 'Aammah (or 3ammah), and it indicates beyond any shred of a doubt (in Arabic) the *vast majority*. You see, I don't think that "the majority" is a good translation. The translation for 3amah that I found was "the general public". So Mohammed was actually saying that the "general public" of the people of hell are women.

Number of occurrences in Bukhari (both Hadeeths): 11 timesNumber of occurrences in Muslim (both Hadeeths): 6 timesNumber of occurrences in Ahmad (both Hadeeths): 27 timesTotal number of occurrences (of both Hadeeths in ALL nine books): 53 times

Based on it being reported in many of the authentic books and also by many different chains of narrators, it is not possible to argue that this hadith is not authentic in its essential meaning.

__________________Shalom to everyone! No extremeis good. Neitherin religion, nor in science.
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
~ Golda Meir~

Honor killing: One would hope for moral clarity from the Muslim community

Honor killing: One would hope for moral clarity from the Muslim community

But it never seems to be forthcoming. An excellent summation of the phenomenon of honor killings: "Honor killings: When the ancient and the modern collide," by Cinnamon Stillwell in, of all places, the San Francisco Gate:

Throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe, young Muslim women are being targeted for violence. Lest it be thought hate crimes are to blame, it is, in fact, their own relatives who are the perpetrators. So-called honor killings, whereby a Muslim male family member, typically the father, murders his daughter in order to defend the family's honor, is a growing problem.

While fathers are commonly responsible for honor killings, they often act in concert with their daughters' brothers, uncles, and even female relatives. For infringements upon a Muslim daughter's "honor" constitute the greatest humiliation possible to the religious and tribal tradition from which many such immigrant families emerged. Acts that demand "punishment" include refusing to wear a hijab (or headscarf), having non-Muslim boyfriends or male friends of any origin, being sexually active, rejecting arranged marriages, aggressively seeking employment and education, and, more than anything else, attempting to assimilate into Western culture.

Trying to balance a tightrope between the demands of competing and in some cases incompatible cultures, young Muslim women in the West are caught between two worlds. And all too often they pay the ultimate price. Indeed, two such cases have rocked the United States and Canada in recent months, bringing the specter of honor killings much closer to home.

On New Year's Day, residents of Lewisville, Texas were shocked to hear about the brutal murder of teenage sisters Sarah and Amina Said. The two were found shot to death in a taxi after having made a last phone call to a police dispatcher asking for help. The police immediately issued an arrest warrant for the girls' father, Egyptian-born cab driver Yaser Abdel Said, who remains at large to this day.

A Muslim married to a Christian woman, the elder Said had a history of physical and sexual abuse toward his daughters. This past Christmas, his wife, Patricia, finally fled the state with the girls and set up residence in Tulsa, Okla., under an assumed name. Said's violent and domineering behavior was apparently motivated by his concern that, as the Dallas Morning News describes it, "Western culture was corrupting the chastity of his daughters." Honor students and athletes at Lewisville High School, Sarah and Amina were the quintessential American teenagers. Amina had been awarded a $20,000 college scholarship and Sarah planned to study medicine. Photos of the two young women demonstrate a vibrancy and attractiveness that undoubtedly induced fear in their controlling father. The emergence of non-Muslim boyfriends was the final straw.

Although the girls' mother denied that Said was motivated by religion or culture and their brother, Islam, claimed it was not an honor killing, all evidence points to the contrary. While, reportedly, the family was not terribly observant, Said, as described by the Dallas Morning News, "often espoused his version of traditional Middle Eastern values," including marrying his then 15-year-old wife when he was 30, threatening to take one of his daughters "back to Egypt and have her killed," where, as he put it, "it's OK to do that ... if you dishonor your family," trying to break up one of his daughters and her non-Muslim boyfriend, and threatening to kill both his daughters on multiple occasions over disputes surrounding their social lives. Summing it all up, the sisters' great-aunt Gail Gartrell stated unequivocally, "This was an honor killing."

The slayings of Sarah and Amina Said came on the heels of another apparent honor killing, that of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez in Mississauga, Ontario, last December. Aqsa was a vivacious and popular young woman whose attempts at a normal, Western teenage social life angered her Pakistani father, Muhammad Parvez. Aqsa, who was opposed to wearing a hijab and sometimes changed her outfit once she got to school, often clashed with her father and had left the family home a week before the attack out of fear. But she eventually returned, only to be met with strangulation at the hands of her own father. She died later in the hospital and the elder Parvez, who initially called the police, was charged with her murder. Aqsa's 26-year-old brother, Waqas, was charged with obstructing police.

Like the Said sisters, Aqsa had long suffered abuse at the hands of her father, reports of which were never adequately pursued by Canadian authorities. But Aqsa's friends saw trouble brewing and, according to the National Post, noted that "she had been threatened by her strictly religious family before." According to one of them, Ebonie Mitchell, Aqsa held conflicting opinions with her family on wearing a hijab. As she put it, Aqsa "just wanted to dress like we do. Last year, she wore like the Islamic stuff and everything, the hijab, and this year she's all western. She just wanted to look like everyone else." As another friend, Krista Garbhet, noted, "She just wanted to be herself; honestly, she just wanted to show her beauty." However, as Aqsa was to discover, the latter desire can have dangerous consequences for young Muslim women in the West.
In the wake of Parvez's murder, one would hope for moral clarity from the Canadian Muslim community. But with a few exceptions, the usual suspects issued the usual apologetics.

Following Parvez's funeral, an anti-violence vigil was held at the Mississauga Civic Centre and organized by the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations. Unfortunately, CAIR-CAN, like its American counterpart, is part of the problem, not the solution. Working to further acceptance of Sharia (or Islamic) law in the United States and Canada and trying to silence — either through accusations of "Islamophobia," libel lawsuits or boycotts — voices of criticism and reform, CAIR's agenda would seem to be working against the advancement of Muslim women's rights.

Accordingly, representatives of other allegedly mainstream Muslim groups, instead of taking the opportunity to address the scourge of honor killings, downplayed the religious and cultural angle. Shahina Siddiqui, president of the Islamic Social Services Association, claimed that "The strangulation death of Ms. Parvez was the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian society and is blind to color or creed," while Sheikh Alaa El-Sayyed, imam of the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, came to the following conclusion: "The bottom line is, it's a domestic violence issue."

In contrast, Canadian Muslim reformer Irshad Manji, in addressing Aqsa Parvez's murder, put it like so:

Moderate Muslims have warned that we shouldn't leap to conclusions. Who knows what other dynamics infected her family, spout hijab-hooded mouthpieces on Canadian TV. Not once have I heard these upstanding Muslims say that whatever the 'family dynamics,' killing is not a solution. Ever. How's that for basic morality?

Until this kind of self-reflection and self-criticism become the norm in the Muslim community, much-needed reform will remain elusive. This includes addressing the root causes of honor killings and sanctioned violence against Muslim women. Although the Koran does not authorize honor killings, Quran 4:34 instructs men to beat disobedient wives and send them to sleep in separate beds. Then there are tribal leaders such as Jordanian Tarrad Fayiz, who tells followers that "A woman is like an olive tree. When its branch catches woodworm, it has to be chopped off so that society stays clean and pure." Op-eds such as the one in the Yemen Times earlier this month recommending violence against women and clerics delivering sermons and speeches doing the same further muddy the waters.

Also at question are the vagaries of the Arab honor/shameculture, in which men's "shame" (or that of the family or tribe) at the prospect of women's sullied "honor" (or chastity) must be avoided at all costs. Honor killings are not, as the apologists would have us believe, simple acts of domestic violence akin to those that take place in all communities. They are specific to Muslim religion and culture and must be addressed as such if ever honest debate about the matter is to ensue.

Regrettably, silence is the more typical reaction to these crimes. Fearful of giving offense or being branded with the ubiquitous "Islamophobia" label, law enforcement, journalists, social workers, government officials and, most of all, Western feminists are allowing a grave threat to women's rights go unaddressed. The

__________________O IsraelThe LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Sometimes it seems to me people on earth are not all living in the 21st century ! Especially in Pakistan.

__________________Shalom to everyone! No extremeis good. Neitherin religion, nor in science.
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
~ Golda Meir~